Byrd is a Saint

[26CornerBlitz]

It was Byrd's turn to be the NFL's highest paid Safety. IMO, the Bills should have stepped it up and paid the price to keep Byrd in Red, White, and Blue. The guy is a productive player entering the prime of his career. You don't let guys like that walk out of your door.

Edited March 12, 2014 by 26CornerBlitz

[C.Biscuit97]

Honest answer and another honest question.

 

The Bills should have tagged Byrd & given themselves one more season (unless they decided to tag again next year). Instead, they created a hole on their roster that must be filled.

 

My question(s): Are the Bills a better team today than they were yesterday? Is that not the goal?

 

In the 2 games against NE (who is the goal), Byrd didn't play & the pass defense was fine.

 

I think Byrd is a really good player & personally wanted him to stay. But it really seems like he didn't want to be here. I really would struggle paying a guy $9 million who really isn't happy being here. For whatever reason, the Bills are good at 2 things: finding rbs & dbs. Get a slow cb with good ball instincts & get the next Byrd.

[NoSaint]

 

 

When the kid said this to Kiefer Sutherland, was he being racist? Where does cheap dime store hood imply color? Are you kidding? I wrote it because I'm pissed at Byrd, joining a long line of players who have no loyalty.

 

im not getting into some political correctness debate with you, and wasnt one of the ones that said you were racist. if you want to dissect the line, PPP is likely a much better place.

 

was simply pointing out that many wouldnt catch the reference to a line in a 30 year old movie, and some of the connotations likely skew less acceptable in the general public today than they did at the time. hence people, that ill say again were not me, did call you racist on it.

 

 

[Tu-Toned]

I hope that he falls flat on his plantar faceitis!

[YoloinOhio]

Honest answer and another honest question.

 

The Bills should have tagged Byrd & given themselves one more season (unless they decided to tag again next year). Instead, they created a hole on their roster that must be filled.

 

My question(s): Are the Bills a better team today than they were yesterday? Is that not the goal?

I would have loved to have kept Byrd too, but we don't know the whole story behind the negotiations. And the season doesn't start today.... so all that matters is whether we are a better team beginning in September. That story is yet to be told. Everyone can assume, and rightfully so, that it won't be better because they didn't replace Levitre last year. But realistically, it first needs to play out because FA isn't over yet, the the draft has't happened yet. The Pats are not a better team today than they were yesterday either because they let Talib walk, without tagging him and without compensation. They will replace him. Let's see what happens with the team first and the evaluate the loss.

[BADOLBILZ]

In the 2 games against NE (who is the goal), Byrd didn't play & the pass defense was fine.

 

I think Byrd is a really good player & personally wanted him to stay. But it really seems like he didn't want to be here. I really would struggle paying a guy $9 million who really isn't happy being here. For whatever reason, the Bills are good at 2 things: finding rbs & dbs. Get a slow cb with good ball instincts & get the next Byrd.

 

 

The whole "didn't want to be here" argument is ridiculous.

 

If one was able to take a private poll of Bills players in November every season....when in full tank-mode once again.......and tell them that if money and job security weren't factors......would they rather be playing for a team with a track record of success or with a good QB or better weather etc..?

 

I think the PRACTICE SQUAD would be unanimous in saying yes, let alone the 53 man.

 

All other things being equal, players want to win. And for good players, when free agency comes, all other things become equal.

 

The guys that want to play in Buffalo want to be here because of money and/or job security that they feel they can't have elsewhere......not out of love.

 

Yes, even your beloved Stevie. He loves it here because they paid him top dollar and he was the undisputed #1 option....by a LONGSHOT...when they re-signed him and at this point if he were cut he would be playing for a whole lot less and probably on a team with more weapons. So Buffalo feels good to him.

 

Nothing wrong with that, that's business....but stop kidding yourselves into thinking "want to be here" means anything.

 

It's want to get paid and want to win.

 

If your organization doesn't offer both of those then you aren't going to be a desirable place to play.

 

Which is why rookies are required to play x number of years before they can become free agents and why there is such a thing as a franchise tag.

 

To prevent bad teams from staying bad.

 

If your organization is too dumb to use the tools at their disposal to escape the cycle of losing that isn't the NFL's or the NFLPA's fault, these advantages were collectively bargained to help the teams compete.

[C.Biscuit97]

The whole "didn't want to be here" argument is ridiculous.

 

If one was able to take a private poll of Bills players in November every season....when in full tank-mode once again.......and tell them that if money and job security weren't factors......would they rather be playing for a team with a track record of success or with a good QB or better weather etc..?

 

I think the PRACTICE SQUAD would be unanimous in saying yes, let alone the 53 man.

 

All other things being equal, players want to win. And for good players, when free agency comes, all other things become equal.

 

The guys that want to play in Buffalo want to be here because of money and/or job security that they feel they can't have elsewhere......not out of love.

 

Yes, even your beloved Stevie. He loves it here because they paid him top dollar and he was the undisputed #1 option....by a LONGSHOT...when they re-signed him and at this point if he were cut he would be playing for a whole lot less and probably on a team with more weapons. So Buffalo feels good to him.

 

Nothing wrong with that, that's business....but stop kidding yourselves into thinking "want to be here" means anything.

 

It's want to get paid and want to win.

 

If your organization doesn't offer both of those then you aren't going to be a desirable place to play.

 

Which is why rookies are required to play x number of years before they can become free agents and why there is such a thing as a franchise tag.

 

To prevent bad teams from staying bad.

 

If your organization is too dumb to use the tools at their disposal to escape the cycle of losing that isn't the NFL's or the NFLPA's fault, these advantages were collectively bargained to help the teams compete.

 

I agree with most of this. But as someone who has an old school mentality like you, you really wanted Byrd for $9 million? Also, keeping in mind that you have other guys to pay (Glenn, Dareus, Spiller), won't a good team pay big bucks for a LT and DT than a LG and DT? Obviously, if the Bills don't re-sign Dareus and Glenn the point is moot. But if you are looking long term (and that's a GM's job), Glenn and Dareus are bigger priorities.

[YoloinOhio]

I agree with most of this. But as someone who has an old school mentality like you, you really wanted Byrd for $9 million? Also, keeping in mind that you have other guys to pay (Glenn, Dareus, Spiller), won't a good team pay big bucks for a LT and DT than a LG and DT? Obviously, if the Bills don't re-sign Dareus and Glenn the point is moot. But if you are looking long term (and that's a GM's job), Glenn and Dareus are bigger priorities.

Especially if you are building a young team, like the Bills, vs. trying to squeeze the last life out of your SB contender before your QB retires, like the Saints.

[BillsVet]

I agree with most of this. But as someone who has an old school mentality like you, you really wanted Byrd for $9 million? Also, keeping in mind that you have other guys to pay (Glenn, Dareus, Spiller), won't a good team pay big bucks for a LT and DT than a LG and DT? Obviously, if the Bills don't re-sign Dareus and Glenn the point is moot. But if you are looking long term (and that's a GM's job), Glenn and Dareus are bigger priorities.

 

What happens when Glenn wants to be paid 9-10M per? Is there another Peters situation that unfolds?

 

I think every rational fan understands a front office has to see beyond this season, but I've seen no indication Buffalo, aside from 1 UFA in the last 5 years, will spend that kind of money.

 

What is the long term plan when drafted players become outstanding and want a significant contract extension? Do the Bills cut and run like they did with Peters, Levitre, and Byrd?

[Andrew Son]

What happens when Glenn wants to be paid 9-10M per? Is there another Peters situation that unfolds?

 

I think every rational fan understands a front office has to see beyond this season, but I've seen no indication Buffalo, aside from 1 UFA in the last 5 years, will spend that kind of money.

 

What is the long term plan when drafted players become outstanding and want a significant contract extension? Do the Bills cut and run like they did with Peters, Levitre, and Byrd?

I agree with this, this will be the key. Signing a guy like A. Williams is one thing. What will be telling is what happens with Glenn, Dareus and Spiller

[BADOLBILZ]

I agree with most of this. But as someone who has an old school mentality like you, you really wanted Byrd for $9 million? Also, keeping in mind that you have other guys to pay (Glenn, Dareus, Spiller), won't a good team pay big bucks for a LT and DT than a LG and DT? Obviously, if the Bills don't re-sign Dareus and Glenn the point is moot. But if you are looking long term (and that's a GM's job), Glenn and Dareus are bigger priorities.

 

First of all, I absolutely franchise Byrd. For a NUMBER of reasons. That is my first preference, even over a long term deal. Worrying about whether Byrd will be happy is not for me. Winning usually turns out to be a nice alternative to being happy.....ask every NE Patriot who got the shaft during their 14 year reign in the AFC East. Winning earns even the most cutthroat of franchises their players respect. Perhaps that's f'd up but it's true. The Bills are far from as cold and insensitive as the Pats have been so I don't see any issue in enforcing a collectively bargained right and paying that guy $8.5M. None whatsoever.

 

But yes, I also pay Byrd if an agreement can be reached. When an organization is entrenched in losing like the Bills are it usually takes a roster of overwhelming strength to turn that tide. SF and Seattle are good examples.......they didn't turn themselves around until they were LOADED with talent. And then....voila....a year after being afterthoughts people were raving about the unsurpassed quality and depth of their rosters. You don't get that by letting your star players go before you get there.

 

Once you win, it becomes easier to win with less talent. Dareus and Glenn could still be extended. The Bills have tremendous cap flexibility. They have lots of cap room and the only big contract they have is Mario....whose contract is very re-structurable in the event that winning becomes part of the Bills program in the next year or two. And even then......it's unlikely they would need it. They are by no means in any cap danger anytime soon. After Glenn and Dareus the next big contract would be Glimore and he is still in prospect mode with 3 years left on his rookie deal. No need to save space for CJ Spiller either, he is not going to be a huge future contract...he will be 28 after his deal is up and the production isn't there.

[dave mcbride]

I agree with most of this. But as someone who has an old school mentality like you, you really wanted Byrd for $9 million? Also, keeping in mind that you have other guys to pay (Glenn, Dareus, Spiller), won't a good team pay big bucks for a LT and DT than a LG and DT? Obviously, if the Bills don't re-sign Dareus and Glenn the point is moot. But if you are looking long term (and that's a GM's job), Glenn and Dareus are bigger priorities.

 

The thing is, the only teams that face this sort of issue are the ones that have QBs taking $25 million or so of cap space. The teams that don't have a QB like that -- and this certainly includes the Bills for the foreseeable future -- really don't have to worry about balancing whether to pay Dareus or Glenn vs. Byrd (or whoever). Personally, I'd be fine with letting Spiller leave when the time comes because I think he's pretty average, but that's a talent call, not a money call. He's very replaceable. This is assuming he can't be re-signed for a fair price. Given what's happening to RBs right now on the FA market, he may well come pretty cheap.

[C.Biscuit97]

First of all, I absolutely franchise Byrd. For a NUMBER of reasons. That is my first preference, even over a long term deal. Worrying about whether Byrd will be happy is not for me. Winning usually turns out to be a nice alternative to being happy.....ask every NE Patriot who got the shaft during their 14 year reign in the AFC East. Winning earns even the most cutthroat of franchises their players respect. Perhaps that's f'd up but it's true. The Bills are far from as cold and insensitive as the Pats have been so I don't see any issue in enforcing a collectively bargained right and paying that guy $8.5M. None whatsoever.

 

But yes, I also pay Byrd if an agreement can be reached. When an organization is entrenched in losing like the Bills are it usually takes a roster of overwhelming strength to turn that tide. SF and Seattle are good examples.......they didn't turn themselves around until they were LOADED with talent. And then....voila....a year after being afterthoughts people were raving about the unsurpassed quality and depth of their rosters. You don't get that by letting your star players go before you get there.

 

Once you win, it becomes easier to win with less talent. Dareus and Glenn could still be extended. The Bills have tremendous cap flexibility. They have lots of cap room and the only big contract they have is Mario....whose contract is very re-structurable in the event that winning becomes part of the Bills program in the next year or two. And even then......it's unlikely they would need it. They are by no means in any cap danger anytime soon. After Glenn and Dareus the next big contract would be Glimore and he is still in prospect mode with 3 years left on his rookie deal. No need to save space for CJ Spiller either, he is not going to be a huge future contract...he will be 28 after his deal is up and the production isn't there.

 

I don't disagree with any of this. I wanted Byrd back too but it's done. If I'm building a franchise, the most important pieces IMO are QB, pass rusher, OT, playmaker (general because it could be either a TE or wr), DT. Those are the top positions I would make absolutely sure to lock up. Every other position is fairly replaceable.

 

The thing is, the only teams that face this sort of issue are the ones that have QBs taking $25 million or so of cap space. The teams that don't have a QB like that -- and this certainly includes the Bills for the foreseeable future -- really don't have to worry about balancing whether to pay Dareus or Glenn vs. Byrd (or whoever). Personally, I'd be fine with letting Spiller leave when the time comes because I think he's pretty average, but that's a talent call, not a money call. He's very replaceable. This is assuming he can't be re-signed for a fair price. Given what's happening to RBs right now on the FA market, he may well come pretty cheap.

 

I know rbs are very replacable but I think Spiller could be a top 3 rb if he stays healthy and is used right. Guys who get 1,200 yards averaging 6 ypc and 10 yards per catch are extremely rare.

[HamSandwhich]

The title of this thread is very misleading. Byrd is by no means a saint.

[RealityCheck]

The title of this thread is very misleading. Byrd is by no means a saint.

You aren't a ham sandwich either, although I could use one.

[HamSandwhich]

You aren't a ham sandwich either, although I could use one.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaa???!?!? How do you know that? Are you outside my house peering into my window?

[dave mcbride]

I don't disagree with any of this. I wanted Byrd back too but it's done. If I'm building a franchise, the most important pieces IMO are QB, pass rusher, OT, playmaker (general because it could be either a TE or wr), DT. Those are the top positions I would make absolutely sure to lock up. Every other position is fairly replaceable.

 

 

 

I know rbs are very replacable but I think Spiller could be a top 3 rb if he stays healthy and is used right. Guys who get 1,200 yards averaging 6 ypc and 10 yards per catch are extremely rare.

Spiller only accomplished that in one season, and he has liabilities too - he's a worse receiver than he should be, he's a bad blocker, and he doesn't seem to be very bright at all. Once he loses a step -- and he will -- he'll be a JAG. His best years will be his first five years. After that, it's all downhill. He's now played 4 NFL seasons and has 3021 rushing yards and 1070 receiving yards (less than Lynch had in his first four seasons). By way of comparison, in years 2-5 of his career, Freddie Jackson had 4800 combined yards (3500 rushing and 1300 receiving).

 

Anyway, for a #9 overall pick, that's pretty sorry production. I know a lot of excuses can be made, but the production is what it is. As it stands, he remains the second best RB on the team.

[Mr. WEO]

The thing is, the only teams that face this sort of issue are the ones that have QBs taking $25 million or so of cap space. The teams that don't have a QB like that -- and this certainly includes the Bills for the foreseeable future -- really don't have to worry about balancing whether to pay Dareus or Glenn vs. Byrd (or whoever). Personally, I'd be fine with letting Spiller leave when the time comes because I think he's pretty average, but that's a talent call, not a money call. He's very replaceable. This is assuming he can't be re-signed for a fair price. Given what's happening to RBs right now on the FA market, he may well come pretty cheap.

 

These are great points. Spiller is low on the re-sign priority list. A small situational back can be found in every draft.

[C.Biscuit97]

Spiller only accomplished that in one season, and he has liabilities too - he's a worse receiver than he should be, he's a bad blocker, and he doesn't seem to be very bright at all. Once he loses a step -- and he will -- he'll be a JAG. His best years will be his first five years. After that, it's all downhill. He's now played 4 NFL seasons and has 3021 rushing yards and 1070 receiving yards (less than Lynch had in his first four seasons). By way of comparison, in years 2-5 of his career, Freddie Jackson had 4800 combined yards (3500 rushing and 1300 receiving).

 

Anyway, for a #9 overall pick, that's pretty sorry production. I know a lot of excuses can be made, but the production is what it is. As it stands, he remains the second best RB on the team.

 

Disagree about him being the 2nd best back on the team. i love FJax but Spiller out rushed him with a bum ankle. He put up 100 yards on the #2 defense in the NFl. He had a !00 yards against a KC defense that was one of the best in the NFL when they played them. He would have had a monster game agaisnt a top 10 Cleveland D but was too hurt.

 

IMO, I'd be a lot more worried about Spiller going to NO than Byrd. Spiller would be a the best rb the Saints have even had.

 

But you are right about the rb market. It sucks to be a rb. Running backs are like pornstars. They get used and abused when they are young and tossed away when they hit 30.

Edited March 12, 2014 by C.Biscuit97

[PO'14]

Disagree about him being the 2nd best back on the team. i love FJax but Spiller out rushed him with a bum ankle. He put up 100 yards on the #2 defense in the NFl. He had a !00 yards against a KC defense that was one of the best in the NFL when they played them. He would have had a monster game agaisnt a top 10 Cleveland D but was too hurt.

 

IMO, I'd be a lot more worried about Spiller going to NO than Byrd. Spiller would be a the best rb the Saints have even had.

Could be, but didn't Fjax have a bum knee??? Also, when I need 1 yard for the first down, Im taking #22 over Spiller any day!